I always find it interesting that when propounding an argument variables are never given, it is always either or, for example:

In the present case, I think Gloria Felcyn is a very nice lady, and I'm sure she's good at basic accounting. Nevertheless, it seems rather obvious, based on PTSC's own allegations now made against TPL/Leckrone, that, for whatever reason, she was either not up to, or not sufficiently motivated as to, the task of getting to the bottom of things in a forensic sense. I am uncertain as to what the role of PTSC's independent auditors may have been in all of this, but there may be responsibility there as well

However, when attempting to refute, there are always variables, for example:

As to the new "3% rule", I am not sure that it will require a three-year waiting period. Frankly, this is outside my field, and I confess that I haven't read the entire text, which means that I can offer only limited comment. However, the regulation appears fairly complex, and complexity often yields exceptions, exceptions to exceptions, and so forth --- for those who don't believe that, try reading the recent health care reform law. The point is that we need to see how this new reg unfolds in light of comments from those knowledgeable in the field before reaching a conclusion. If I can find the time, I'm going to see if I can locate a colleague who has those qualifications, and, if I'm successful, I will share it here

http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/topics/438759-about-10-years-ago-there-was/messages/1433728#message

Is there any particular reason for these apparent conflicting articulations?

.

.

.

Be well